You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I didn't see that as judgment, as much as it was a statement - "I have to put up with things from other people that are annoying and tiresome to me". Of course I complain about it, but then again, so does everyone, as you said. That could be shadow functions manifesting to blow off steam, but it is part of my (our?) personality. I never stated that our type was the only one to experience this, but that it is a constant occurrence. Likewise, sympathy is about the last thing I was looking for - understanding where I'm coming from was more the target. Rather than "I feel for him", it's more a sense of "Well, I certainly don't see it that way, but it's valid that he does given his differences from me."

You've actually agreed with me here saying that you are not unique in experiencing this. No special understanding is granted because it is not a special circumstance, as you stated here. Other than that, you are welcome to feel as you like and those feelings would, of course, be valid for you.

Your original statement reflected a one-sided view of the interactions you described. People are boring and uninteresting. You are burdened by having to put up with them. There is judgment in that statement. Perhaps this links to being aware of how you are feeling (self-awareness) but not being or working on being aware of the people involved in the interaction (awareness of the environment). Either way, I find it difficult to offer understanding with only one part expressed. This may be a need at my end to see equality in all matters of the interpersonal realm.

Great is a fully subjective opinion. You might not think them that great, but they are that way to me, because they interest me and they seem logical. You know we're not going to be upset if there is no implementation - just an acknowledgment that the idea is interesting is usually enough. Completely ignoring the idea or brushing it off as "random" without trying to understand it is the hurtful part.

Yes all normative views are subjective. Arrogance is also a subjective judgment. I hold that assuming the ideas are 'great' without test of their merit is arrogant. having said that, I understand well the part about having your ideas ignored because they are different or not quite apparent. Ne doms would all likely empathize.

"Trust me" is as much as I can give you on this one, because it doesn't follow any sort of rationality beyond human social interaction - we recognize when someone's trying to socially one-up us. The distinction between ideas and decisions was a great way of putting it earlier in the thread. That's also why we get in trouble for one-upping others often - because we either misinterpret a situation, or head off someone engaging in the process before they expect us to understand what's going on. The 90% number was a ballpark figure, meant to emphasize that we tend to be right about decisions much more often than not - when it comes to pure logical outcomes. Where our numbers may differ is that sometimes we discount the social effect variable, and the result, while satisfactory in our estimation, is much less than ideal in yours ("You know, you didn't have to just run everyone over on that one" "Well, it got done, right? That's the important part, right?")

It may be all that is on offer but it just doesn't suffice. Judgment of decisions here is subjective as well, isn't it? So how can you ascribe a number to being right when it may only be right in your view.

Again, the issue is the reflection in your statements that there is only the attempt made to see things from your own limited perspective connected with the assumption of being right much of the time. There are rarely only pure logical outcomes to any decision. You may be right or you may not, I'm just trying to point out that going in with this assumption could lead to being blind sighted and missing other perspectives. It's not just about running others over (that's a separate issue). It's about what may be most useful for you or more generally, any decision maker. Going in with this conviction limits what you take into account, in your own logical analysis to only how you conceive of the situation. No matter how insightful your views are, they will be limited. Not recognizing that others have opinions/perspectives of virtue will ultimately constrict the options seen and the decision made.

Funnily, I think ENFPs and ENTPs lie at the opposite end of this spectrum. My complaint is that there is little input from others in decision making on the part of the ENTP and I'm sure we're seen as too susceptible to other perspectives. Somewhere between these must lie a happy medium. I'm trying to be aware of that possibility and pointing to the same here.

Maybe so, but this interpretation being seen as off-kilter is possibly the Tert Fe speaking. Like "dammit, I know I'm supposed to like people and make them feel better, but sheesh, they're boring as all hell and generally a waste of my time". Maybe the unique part isn't so much the mindset as the internal conflict that it creates, particularly when you've been raised in an overtly Fe culture (Southern US).

That's an internal struggle you'll have to deal with on your own. For Fi-doms, the idea that we have to like all people and make them feel better is completely alien.

It's both. Situations where I'll say something completely clearly and without malice, and it's interpreted as judgmental or indicative of how I consider their character. It's hard to explain to them "no, I don't think you're particularly bad, I just think all humans are pieces of shit! We all do stupid things and have silly thoughts, and no one is any better or worse than the other for it". Remember, in the Fe world, timing is everything. Ne does not like that very much. Ti will get you into trouble by either overthinking it, or trying to explain the emotion through objective language that will seem judgmental. Therefore, it's much easier to just stick with what's socially conventional. And yes, much like in the first paragraph, I'll say something completely candidly, and someone else will say "well you're just arrogant". No, I'm just saying what I think. I don't think I'm better than you (the thought is alien to us. We may think we're better than a situation, or worth better treatment than we receive, but rarely do we ever think we're unequivocally "better" than someone else. Much too subjective).

I think this will hold little weight with Fi-doms (I'm limited by my own perspective, at least I recognize that ). When you rely on social conventions to express how you feel to us, we only see social conventions being used and not that you are trying to adapt how you feel to language that is freely available. At least with us, don't use the Fe conventions. We find them boring and insincere since by your own admission, they don't really reflect how you think/feel.

We are on the same page with recognizing that we are better than a situation/problem/challenge but rarely the people. I couldn't agree more.

The problem is that the mutual discussion and desires get sidetracked very quickly when I say something objectively and bluntly, and then the Fe/Fi aux/dom gets all pissed off and chews us out for being insensitive (or thinks much less of us because of it). It's just one of the rules of the world - your style of communication dominates the expectations and standards of social interaction. Not only that, no one is faced with the idea that another person's speech does not have any emotional subtext, unless they're on one of these sites trying to figure out why this person acts so strangely. Notice the difference between the responses of others to someone being accused of being either "irrational" or "insensitive". The insensitive one usually is chided for that, and advised to be more sensitive to the other person's feelings in the future. Is anyone accused of being "irrational" ever advised to make more sense in their arguments in future disputes?

First, being objective and being insensitive are separate issues. Several combinations of the two are possible. It may not just be 'how' you are expressing your thoughts but the content itself that may be insensitive as well. Just a thought.

Actually, yes. We live in a country and a culture that gives left-brained explanations of things much more value than right-brained. There are lots of occasions when people are accused of being irrational or too sensitive and their opinions ignored. Ummm, women have traditionally been treated in this manner because many are socialized to express their opinions with emotional subtext. I disagree that objective perspectives (not rationality - broad idea including emotional processes) get the short end of the stick.

Sex is a two-way street, and I'm only traveling on one side. Those thoughts are equal by my estimation because the consequences are deeply concerning to me. They're prioritized in my thinking in much the same way her feelings would be prioritized afterward. Both serve the same evolutionary purpose, I'd imagine.

Nothing you said earlier highlighted that you considered the other person's emotions. You may have, your statement regarding the consequences did not reflect this. There is no judgment here of the process just a matter-of-fact evaluation that the consequences you mentioned don't necessarily prioritize the other person's emotions.

Thanks. I'll try to give advice less often, I know you sometimes don't need it. I'll also do my best not to outwardly point out your inner motivations and cognition behind points you make in conversation - besides, it's much more effective to just make a seemingly neutral comment and let you hang yourself with your own rope

That rope is usually long enough to hang multiples, thanks. You assume you would be able to point to my inner motivations and cognition. You are free to assume that - once again, you may be right or you may be wrong. I wouldn't rely on being right particularly in this area.

Yeah, I would qualify that more as externally aware as separate from self-aware. By the way, "self-awareness" isn't an undeniably good thing, either. It can very much get in the way when altruism and self-sacrifice are needed in the situation.

Fair point. Self-awareness is likely focused on one's own motivations and cognition and less on the effects on the environment. Having said that, self-awareness implies a certain depth of understanding of ones own motivations and an understanding of how these can be changed as is the case with behavior. Just an awareness, like Q pointed out, is not the same as self-awareness. I obviously can't judge anyone else's level of self awareness but I do bristle at the idea of an entire type inherently possessing this quality. Introspection may be inherent to the type but that does not naturally lead to the depth of understanding the term self-awareness represents.

For example, I'd say the prototypical ESFJ is much less "self-aware" than the prototypical ENTP. By this, I mean that the person is less acutely understanding of personal motivations and reasons they do things than the ENTP is. However, they blow us away in "external awareness". They know exactly how their actions will affect their external environment, can modify their behavior accordingly to achieve many personal goals and improve others' lives (the so-called "manipulative" nature). At the same time, with a couple of my personal ESFJ friends, personal issues that everyone else notices and we try to point out are hard to relate, unless we're talking about an issue that is seemingly unrelated, and their Ne catches something and immediately recognizes it in themselves. That's the gist of what I mean by self-aware versus externally aware.

The manipulation actually takes away from real awareness. Awareness implies recognition of attitudes/behaviors that could be harmful to us/others and understanding that it is useful to change them. Fi can be manipulative. As blah... said, expressing certain emotions could lead to negative manipulations of others and isn't necessarily a positive thing. This manipulation reflects knowledge of how this is done subconsciously but the lack of awareness that it is harmful. Self-awareness requires more work than just recognizing your powers. It comes with recognizing and practicing responsibility in utilizing them.

And yes, I realize that often it seems to be otherwise with our emotions, but that's just usually our desire and need to keep our emotions to ourselves.

This is moot - if you don't express the emotions, it's hard to give weight to the self-awareness being there or not. It could go either way.

At this point, I think I've said most of what I was thinking about. Thanks for listening. I'll be looking for and carefully reading your response, if you'd like to post one. I don't really think I have much more to add to the points above. I'd rather not be redundant which I'm afraid I have been already here. The issues are there, highlighted well enough at both ends (see ENFP hate thread if not convinced and it's up to each of us to own our parts. I'll be working on mine. There is a tendency in these hate threads to bring what we know of our person (of the hated type for that thread) to the thread and expect resolution there. I was venting myself and recognize that this is not the place for resolution. We can both take what applies to us generally and safely leave the rest.

You've actually agreed with me here saying that you are not unique in experiencing this. No special understanding is granted because it is not a special circumstance, as you stated here. Other than that, you are welcome to feel as you like and those feelings would, of course, be valid for you.

It's not the circumstance that is special, as much as it is the context and manifestation of these experiences. Perhaps the difference is that you might be inclined to think people dull, but also to accept them as fellow people who may have a different way of looking at things. My inclination is to end the boredom by either removing myself from the situation, avoiding it in the future, or influence the action to make it more stimulating. You're fine in the first situation because you've satisfied your personal Fi "good", while I'm in a bit more of a tenuous situation, because situations can and do backfire. This would lead to quite a bit more frustration in my situation, wouldn't you think?

Your original statement reflected a one-sided view of the interactions you described. People are boring and uninteresting. You are burdened by having to put up with them. There is judgment in that statement. Perhaps this links to being aware of how you are feeling (self-awareness) but not being or working on being aware of the people involved in the interaction (awareness of the environment). Either way, I find it difficult to offer understanding with only one part expressed. This may be a need at my end to see equality in all matters of the interpersonal realm.

I see no judgment whatsoever. "Some/many people do not engage my way of thinking and thus create a sense of boredom or disinterest" is what I mean by them being boring and uninteresting. It's just that most people would consider that robotic and strange, so I'm inclined to use the more Si language, even when I'm not judging at all. There's no intended implication that they're bad people for this.

Not to be presumptive, but perhaps it might help to think of it in a Te context - rather than try to assume that I am making a judgment of my superiority or burden (given the information I've related), ask "OK, why is he saying this? What information is he trying to relay that fits within the model of what I know about ENTPs?" If Fi tries to barge in, perhaps ask "yes, it violates my personal standards, but where does it fit in within his personal standards?". Might help .

Yes all normative views are subjective. Arrogance is also a subjective judgment. I hold that assuming the ideas are 'great' without test of their merit is arrogant. having said that, I understand well the part about having your ideas ignored because they are different or not quite apparent. Ne doms would all likely empathize.

I understand what you're saying, and yes, this is likely common to all ENXPs. Just remember, we still operate under Tert Fe, and believe that people at the very least should make an effort to understand and appreciate others' ideas, even if we slip up at times or often (due to the tertiary status). Where you might be inclined to think "well, they just don't understand, or maybe it was silly" and leave it at that, we're much more likely to be offended from a "hey, I listened to him go on and on about how it was actually the Japanese who landed on the moon, and I didn't ignore him or make him feel like an idiot for an obviously idiotic statement" point of view.

It may be all that is on offer but it just doesn't suffice. Judgment of decisions here is subjective as well, isn't it? So how can you ascribe a number to being right when it may only be right in your view.

It was a ballpark figure thrown out there to indicate "much more often than not". It's not supposed to be literal. We're not Ti dom, you know . That being said, we still live in the realm of Ti objectivity. If we say something is going to happen and it does happen, we're right. If not, we're wrong. This is regardless of who gets pissed in the process.

Meanwhile, as we've mentioned, there's a difference between dispassionate debate (where we're wont to take the devil's advocate position just to explore the possibilities) and personal decisions (where criticism is interpreted as an attack on our credibility, maybe the characteristic of ourselves that we value the most highly). Thus, our often-defensive nature when we get criticized about predictions that went wrong, and pointing out of small characteristics that we got right (defending ourselves as credible predictors), and even stronger defensiveness when our decisions come under criticism (because not only are we constantly analyzing and ruminating over the decision and playing devil's advocate with ourselves, the last thing we need is someone sniping our credibility as decision-makers to establish social dominance).

Again, the issue is the reflection in your statements that there is only the attempt made to see things from your own limited perspective connected with the assumption of being right much of the time. There are rarely only pure logical outcomes to any decision. You may be right or you may not, I'm just trying to point out that going in with this assumption could lead to being blind sighted and missing other perspectives. It's not just about running others over (that's a separate issue). It's about what may be most useful for you or more generally, any decision maker. Going in with this conviction limits what you take into account, in your own logical analysis to only how you conceive of the situation. No matter how insightful your views are, they will be limited. Not recognizing that others have opinions/perspectives of virtue will ultimately constrict the options seen and the decision made.

There are rarely only logical outcomes, but there are always logical outcomes. The logic changes with the context, but they are there. The development of Fe within an ENTP commonly manifests as reconciling the seeming illogic of the F function with it's overwhelming effectiveness in the realm of human contact, leading to it's own sort of logic. At the same time, we do share your ability to understand that things are seemingly non-intuitive on the surface - it's just that we're inclined to deconstruct the subject until its own internal logic surfaces, while that may not be the case from your perspective.

I'm also in agreement on the limitation of a single person's view - but do quibble with the idea that we don't account for others' perspectives and opinions. My own take is that we do - it's just that we demand a hell of a lot of evidence in favor of that view in order to consider it valid in that circumstance. It's not immediately apparent to consider someone's perspective just because it's right to consider others' opinions - filtering through fact and evidence is much more important to making a correct decision. Fe development leads us to consider others' opinions more readily out of reciprocality - you should consider others' opinions even if you immediately understand them to be incorrect, because you'd want them to do the same for you.

Funnily, I think ENFPs and ENTPs lie at the opposite end of this spectrum. My complaint is that there is little input from others in decision making on the part of the ENTP and I'm sure we're seen as too susceptible to other perspectives. Somewhere between these must lie a happy medium. I'm trying to be aware of that possibility and pointing to the same here.

I think it is in the development of the tert function that this happy medium can be found. We need to consider others' opinions and views in the interest of social cohesion and harmony - and perhaps because something insightful might pop up. Maybe the ENFP equivalent is using Te to filter other's opinions through the logical frameworks that an ENFP has found to have a tendency of working, and not feel bad in discounting an opinion that just does not fit or work.

That's an internal struggle you'll have to deal with on your own. For Fi-doms, the idea that we have to like all people and make them feel better is completely alien.

That was an invitation to understanding where we come from. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think this will hold little weight with Fi-doms (I'm limited by my own perspective, at least I recognize that ). When you rely on social conventions to express how you feel to us, we only see social conventions being used and not that you are trying to adapt how you feel to language that is freely available. At least with us, don't use the Fe conventions. We find them boring and insincere since by your own admission, they don't really reflect how you think/feel.

Yeah, but when we turn them off, you get pissed at how insensitive we are. You see the catch-22? We can't talk without the Fe and not sound cold and calculating to Fi dom/auxes. We can't talk with it on and not sound fake. There's very little else in our arsenal for relating to your conversant style, unless we're really, really close and I'm comfortable with sharing the internal world with you. Even then, we're constantly in danger of being judged as emotionally shallow as the only manifestation of emotion as F dom/auxes understand it is in reference to our relationships with people.

We are on the same page with recognizing that we are better than a situation/problem/challenge but rarely the people. I couldn't agree more.

So am I correct in assuming that egalitarianism is one of your core values? That's good, we can work together. With that in mind, take notice that the expression of someone's actions or thoughts conflicting with your internal principles can often come across as implying that you feel morally superior to them. I take it you're not intending this.

First, being objective and being insensitive are separate issues. Several combinations of the two are possible. It may not just be 'how' you are expressing your thoughts but the content itself that may be insensitive as well. Just a thought.

See, that's an alien concept to me. Thoughts are thoughts, and concepts are concepts. It's very important to me that I do not allow what could be seen as personal judgments to cloud (or possibly inform, from your perspective) my perspective on things, as it may lead me to an incorrect conclusion, i.e. one that is empirically untrue or does not work. When Polonius in Hamlet says "to thine own self be true", my interpretation on that statement is to never lie to myself, or make interpretations on things that do not fit the empirical evidence, as opposed to compromising personal principles, as many interpret that phrase to mean.

So when I start discussing a highly emotionally charged or potentially offensive subject with detachment and dispassion, it's not because I think these were good things, or even neutral things - it's just that I'm exploring the subject due to something that piqued my interest. Once again, Fe is useful to determine when this is appropriate and when it's not.

Actually, yes. We live in a country and a culture that gives left-brained explanations of things much more value than right-brained. There are lots of occasions when people are accused of being irrational or too sensitive and their opinions ignored. Ummm, women have traditionally been treated in this manner because many are socialized to express their opinions with emotional subtext. I disagree that objective perspectives (not rationality - broad idea including emotional processes) get the short end of the stick.

I disagree, and most likely due to a different perspective. While perhaps on a professional level this may be the case, oftentimes there is an Fe element to it as well - it's not that expressions of emotion are disdained, it's that they're disdained when expressed at a socially inappropriate time. (speculation) While someone whose core Fi principles may have been severely violated, causing a strong need to defend those principles, establish limits and assuage the hurt, often it's not the "irrationality" that's criticized, it's why the outburst had to happen in front of so many people at such an awkward time.

I'm not discounting sexism, either, but I think that it has less to do with bias toward T in this sake as much as it is just bias towards men in general. Likewise, I don't discount that Fi-users often get the short end in general. Dom/aux male Fe-users are very commonly respected for the grace and aplomb they use in their interactions, their trustworthiness and reliability, and quiet gravitas, depending on the other functions. At worst, these types are "overbearing", "manipulative", "shallow", and "predictable". Unfortunately, their Fi-dominant/auxiliary counterparts rarely get the same level of respect.

At the same time, though, you're kind of making my point for me as well - men with highly-developed T functions are often respected for their analytical and organizational skills, but at the same time decried as "cold", "heartless", "thoughtless", "assholes", "arrogant", "uptight", "rigid", "smart, but just doesn't get it", "dictator", "fascist" and so on, and so forth. Women with highly-developed T functions are described as "ice queens", "cold", "tomboys", "dykes" (much like men with dom/aux Fi are commonly thought to be gay), "dragon ladies", "sluts", "bossy", "flighty", "random", "not maternal", so on and so forth.

So yes, when it comes to disparagement, I think when it comes to the entirety of the T function, we get much more criticism than F-users in general, however, I'm not unwilling to discount that the world of shit Fi-users have to deal with may equal or overwhelm these criticisms. Yes, the Fe-dom/aux get off way too damn easily in this department.

Nothing you said earlier highlighted that you considered the other person's emotions. You may have, your statement regarding the consequences did not reflect this. There is no judgment here of the process just a matter-of-fact evaluation that the consequences you mentioned don't necessarily prioritize the other person's emotions.

You're right, they don't. Mostly because at that point, the material consequences outweigh the emotional consequences (as we did just get laid, and Fe is satisfied if we weren't selfish in the process - Ne-users are much more interested in exploration of the concept than merely reaching climax ) in our estimation. The big issue is mostly Si - "sex is supposed to make you happy, and it's raising a ton of concerns right now". The other person's emotional state is somewhat irrelevant if it's casual, while it's a much bigger deal when in a serious relationship, as we would want the significant other to care about our feelings in that situation too.

That rope is usually long enough to hang multiples, thanks. You assume you would be able to point to my inner motivations and cognition. You are free to assume that - once again, you may be right or you may be wrong. I wouldn't rely on being right particularly in this area.

It's not a case of actually pointing out your inner motivations and cognition, it's getting you to do it and revealing more about yourself. The operative quote here is "you think I said that because of X and Y?" No, but you clearly were subconsciously thinking that way, because that's what your brain immediately interpreted my neutral comment as implying.

Fair point. Self-awareness is likely focused on one's own motivations and cognition and less on the effects on the environment. Having said that, self-awareness implies a certain depth of understanding of ones own motivations and an understanding of how these can be changed as is the case with behavior. Just an awareness, like Q pointed out, is not the same as self-awareness. I obviously can't judge anyone else's level of self awareness but I do bristle at the idea of an entire type inherently possessing this quality. Introspection may be inherent to the type but that does not naturally lead to the depth of understanding the term self-awareness represents.

It's not so much simply introspection, as it is introspection and a need to understand how our inner worlds work. This is likely common among NTPs in general. This also leads to a ton of self-criticism that occurs mostly hidden from the outside world. When we get upset over someone criticizing us, oftentimes the anger comes not from the criticism itself, but more from the sense of "haven't you figured out that I'm beating myself up over this way more than you ever could? FFS, I don't need to deal with extra crap".

Likewise, I'm assuming that your implication is that because we don't seem to have a grip on our emotions in certain circumstances, that the claim of "self-awareness" is somewhat suspect. I'll just say that in that circumstance, what's going on outside may not square away with what's inside. "Why am I feeling this way?" and reasoning it out is a very common conversation I have with myself, even if it's not externally apparent often.

The manipulation actually takes away from awareness. Awareness implies recognition of attitudes/behaviors that could be harmful to us/others and understanding that it is useful to change them. Fi can be manipulative. As blah... said, expressing certain emotions could lead to negative manipulations of others and isn't necessarily a positive thing. This manipulation reflects an awareness of how this is done subconsciously but the lack of self-awareness that it is harmful. Self-awareness requires more work than just recognizing your powers. It comes with recognizing and practicing responsibility in utilizing them.

Awareness can also imply that you understand the emotional response, where it's coming from, purpose and consequences. While changing them can be useful, using them to your own and to others' advantage (emotional manipulation) can be useful as well, even if distasteful.

Your point about responsibility speaks more to your own personal values than awareness in general, and perhaps implies "self-awareness" more than anything.

This is moot - if you don't express the emotions, it's hard to give weight to the self-awareness being there or not. It could go either way.

Like I mentioned before, our emotions are hacked out in our heads, and the process usually effectively determines the initial cause and subsequent effects (though the process can take a long time), letting us come to terms with what we feel and why we feel it. Once again, if you're not let in, it's not your place to intervene.

By the way, a cheap trick if you want to give out emotional advice and analysis, and not necessarily receive the brunt of our wrath - "If I were in your place". "If I were in your place, I'd be feeling X. In those circumstances, I find that it's best to Y." Even if we don't immediately agree, just continuing with a response like "yeah, but it's worth a shot, isn't it?" can help a ton. With that in mind, if the response to that is something like "yeah, but that's not the way I feel about it at all", then just let it be.

Perhaps the difference is that you might be inclined to think people dull, but also to accept them as fellow people who may have a different way of looking at things. My inclination is to end the boredom by either removing myself from the situation, avoiding it in the future, or influence the action to make it more stimulating. You're fine in the first situation because you've satisfied your personal Fi "good", while I'm in a bit more of a tenuous situation, because situations can and do backfire. This would lead to quite a bit more frustration in my situation, wouldn't you think?

Let me just point out that you presume here what my response (as representing ENFPs or other Ne-Fi users) may be in the situation. That's simply inaccurate for me and perhaps for others as well. I don't think it's unusual at all to remove myself from a situation/people that don't have much to offer. It seems a natural response. It's the view of the other people I objected to - that is the only Fi part that needs to be satisfied.

I see no judgment whatsoever. "Some/many people do not engage my way of thinking and thus create a sense of boredom or disinterest" is what I mean by them being boring and uninteresting. It's just that most people would consider that robotic and strange, so I'm inclined to use the more Si language, even when I'm not judging at all. There's no intended implication that they're bad people for this.

Not to be presumptive, but perhaps it might help to think of it in a Te context - rather than try to assume that I am making a judgment of my superiority or burden (given the information I've related), ask "OK, why is he saying this? What information is he trying to relay that fits within the model of what I know about ENTPs?" If Fi tries to barge in, perhaps ask "yes, it violates my personal standards, but where does it fit in within his personal standards?". Might help .

This is hilarious - thanks for the help with keeping Fi in check while engaging Te. It is very presumptive but also funny which gets some points.

There are two parts to this -- one, when you say you are putting up with people, there is an inherent hierarchy expressed to the observor. The hierarchy as viewed from the outside views other people inherently as less interesting and with less to offer. There is judgment there. I'm not sure where seeing them as 'bad' comes in - their moral character is not in question here, it is their intelligence and value as companions. In that sense, there is judgment, much like you pointed out there was judgment at my end with understanding this as arrogant.

I understand what you're saying, and yes, this is likely common to all ENXPs. Just remember, we still operate under Tert Fe, and believe that people at the very least should make an effort to understand and appreciate others' ideas, even if we slip up at times or often (due to the tertiary status). Where you might be inclined to think "well, they just don't understand, or maybe it was silly" and leave it at that, we're much more likely to be offended from a "hey, I listened to him go on and on about how it was actually the Japanese who landed on the moon, and I didn't ignore him or make him feel like an idiot for an obviously idiotic statement" point of view.

Okay. Sure.

It was a ballpark figure thrown out there to indicate "much more often than not". It's not supposed to be literal. We're not Ti dom, you know . That being said, we still live in the realm of Ti objectivity. If we say something is going to happen and it does happen, we're right. If not, we're wrong. This is regardless of who gets pissed in the process.

How big is this ballpark? When you spoke of being right, it wasn't only in the context of measurable consequences and predictions regarding these consequences which highlights a more subjective characterization of the circumstances than you present here. Even in this realm of measurable consequences and cause and effect, the odds (given the inherent unpredictability of life, particularly when involving human behavior, hence tentative conclusions in the social sciences) do not support the claim.

Meanwhile, as we've mentioned, there's a difference between dispassionate debate (where we're wont to take the devil's advocate position just to explore the possibilities) and personal decisions (where criticism is interpreted as an attack on our credibility, maybe the characteristic of ourselves that we value the most highly). Thus, our often-defensive nature when we get criticized about predictions that went wrong, and pointing out of small characteristics that we got right (defending ourselves as credible predictors), and even stronger defensiveness when our decisions come under criticism (because not only are we constantly analyzing and ruminating over the decision and playing devil's advocate with ourselves, the last thing we need is someone sniping our credibility as decision-makers to establish social dominance).

I think this has been suitable addressed by the others as well. The social dominance part is completely understandable as is the frustration with questioning of personal decisions.

There are rarely only logical outcomes, but there are always logical outcomes. The logic changes with the context, but they are there. The development of Fe within an ENTP commonly manifests as reconciling the seeming illogic of the F function with it's overwhelming effectiveness in the realm of human contact, leading to it's own sort of logic. At the same time, we do share your ability to understand that things are seemingly non-intuitive on the surface - it's just that we're inclined to deconstruct the subject until its own internal logic surfaces, while that may not be the case from your perspective.

This was a response to a weak argument on my part regarding non logical outcomes. So, I'll restate.

First, in the original statement, there was a presumption that you (or ENTPs generally) are the only ones concerned with logical outcomes and thus best equipped to see these. Other perspectives may include different understandings of the logical outcomes as well. It is possible that objective logical processing by different people can lead to different outcomes. You may still ignore other logical perspectives.

Secondly, to address what you do here in response to there not being only logical outcomes. There is a presumption in this about my or other F's processes. The presumption that Fs are only interested or useful in their impact on the human realm or as the last part suggests, for those of us who are Ne doms, stop at Ne's explanations (superficial or surface explanations then)? This seems strange and is a limited understanding of F's processes. Sure, F functions are naturally inclined to the human realm. Why presume however that Fs are not interested in understanding the inherent logic of the subject as well?

And yes, the feeling function does have its own logic (tell us how you really feel about this, will you, it didn't come across above with the illogic remark. ) There are other threads on here that discuss the differences and characterization of F logic better and a search could bring several up.

I'm also in agreement on the limitation of a single person's view - but do quibble with the idea that we don't account for others' perspectives and opinions. My own take is that we do - it's just that we demand a hell of a lot of evidence in favor of that view in order to consider it valid in that circumstance. It's not immediately apparent to consider someone's perspective just because it's right to consider others' opinions - filtering through fact and evidence is much more important to making a correct decision. Fe development leads us to consider others' opinions more readily out of reciprocality - you should consider others' opinions even if you immediately understand them to be incorrect, because you'd want them to do the same for you.

This is fair but wasn't reflected in what you had originally said and in the assumption that ENTPs are generally right much of the time. Absolutely, as we all do, filter other perspectives through the same rigorous process you would your own. That is simply employing discernment which we all do. This helps clarify that you do consider other perspectives which wasn't reflected in previous statements. This was less relevant to ENTPs in general since its a gross generalization to make based on a single person's comment (on your original ballpark figure on being right).

I think it is in the development of the tert function that this happy medium can be found. We need to consider others' opinions and views in the interest of social cohesion and harmony - and perhaps because something insightful might pop up. Maybe the ENFP equivalent is using Te to filter other's opinions through the logical frameworks that an ENFP has found to have a tendency of working, and not feel bad in discounting an opinion that just does not fit or work.

The highlighted part is where my interest lay. The social cohesion and harmony part is less important to me, particularly when the interest is better intellectual understanding of a subject. Weak Fe, clearly, on my part. Yes, we likely do use Te as a filter and it is useful. Not being bogged down with Fe means we are not inclined to accept other opinions purely because they are other opinions and thus there is no remorse in dismissing them when they are not discerning. Yet, the assumption at my end (don't know about other ENFPs) is that there are always multiple valid perspectives, logical or feeling based and I'd be better equipped and have a fuller understanding of the subject itself were I to consider them and put them through the test I do my own.

Yeah, but when we turn them off, you get pissed at how insensitive we are. You see the catch-22? We can't talk without the Fe and not sound cold and calculating to Fi dom/auxes. We can't talk with it on and not sound fake. There's very little else in our arsenal for relating to your conversant style, unless we're really, really close and I'm comfortable with sharing the internal world with you. Even then, we're constantly in danger of being judged as emotionally shallow as the only manifestation of emotion as F dom/auxes understand it is in reference to our relationships with people.

Personally, and to most high Fi users (I'm not a dom so I should be careful about using that), authenticity is more important than social conventions. You will have sympathy at least in this quarter for expressing yourself as such instead of using cliched social language. It's also quite apparent at our end when this is done in the interpersonal realm. B.S. meters, so to speak.

So am I correct in assuming that egalitarianism is one of your core values? That's good, we can work together. With that in mind, take notice that the expression of someone's actions or thoughts conflicting with your internal principles can often come across as implying that you feel morally superior to them. I take it you're not intending this.

Absolutely not and I hope it doesn't come across as such. If it does, it reflects a miscommunication. This may also be a conclusion you reached all on your own! You also assume here that the only conflict I am highlighting is that with my own internal principles and that what I have said is does not aim to or highlight inconsistencies in what you said with the eventual goal of a better understanding of the context, whatever it may be. Judging moral superiority should be relegated to the religiously inclined - they have stricter hierarchies than most of us. I don't. The shared goal, I thought, was finding out the best way to unearth the truth of the situation, whatever the context. Doing this in an egalitarian manner is even better.

I disagree, and most likely due to a different perspective. While perhaps on a professional level this may be the case, oftentimes there is an Fe element to it as well - it's not that expressions of emotion are disdained, it's that they're disdained when expressed at a socially inappropriate time. (speculation) While someone whose core Fi principles may have been severely violated, causing a strong need to defend those principles, establish limits and assuage the hurt, often it's not the "irrationality" that's criticized, it's why the outburst had to happen in front of so many people at such an awkward time.

No. I don't agree. It's not just about timing or context (public versus private). I won't go so far as to call it irrational but the expression of an emotional viewpoint is almost always seen as less valuable than one that is done in a more objective manner. In the interest of Fe or social harmony, as you rightly pointed out, these are not always dismissed but I would hardly consider them as validated.

I'm not discounting sexism, either, but I think that it has less to do with bias toward T in this sake as much as it is just bias towards men in general. Likewise, I don't discount that Fi-users often get the short end in general. Dom/aux male Fe-users are very commonly respected for the grace and aplomb they use in their interactions, their trustworthiness and reliability, and quiet gravitas, depending on the other functions. At worst, these types are "overbearing", "manipulative", "shallow", and "predictable". Unfortunately, their Fi-dominant/auxiliary counterparts rarely get the same level of respect.

At the same time, though, you're kind of making my point for me as well - men with highly-developed T functions are often respected for their analytical and organizational skills, but at the same time decried as "cold", "heartless", "thoughtless", "assholes", "arrogant", "uptight", "rigid", "smart, but just doesn't get it", "dictator", "fascist" and so on, and so forth. Women with highly-developed T functions are described as "ice queens", "cold", "tomboys", "dykes" (much like men with dom/aux Fi are commonly thought to be gay), "dragon ladies", "sluts", "bossy", "flighty", "random", "not maternal", so on and so forth.

So yes, when it comes to disparagement, I think when it comes to the entirety of the T function, we get much more criticism than F-users in general, however, I'm not unwilling to discount that the world of shit Fi-users have to deal with may equal or overwhelm these criticisms. Yes, the Fe-dom/aux get off way too damn easily in this department.

We are naturally inclined toward giving more consideration to our own lot. For all the unfortunate stereotypes you pointed out above for high T men and women, there are an equal number for high F men and women. I do have sincere sympathy for the sexism angle regarding high T women and high F men, that is particularly unfortunate and holds true. However, being of the majority, high F women, I don't think we have any special privileges particularly in the professional realm but also in the personal realm (besides simply being considered sensitive and high EQ is considered a positive trait). In the professional realm, F users are systematically dismissed because purely objective presentations of arguments are valued more, in my experience. In the personal realm, expressing emotional arguments often is the source of more fear than respect, particularly with T-ers.

It's not a case of actually pointing out your inner motivations and cognition, it's getting you to do it and revealing more about yourself. The operative quote here is "you think I said that because of X and Y?" No, but you clearly were subconsciously thinking that way, because that's what your brain immediately interpreted my neutral comment as implying.

Gladly and likewise. Comments are rarely neutral however and I'm just pointing out similar inconsistencies that may not be apparent.

It's not so much simply introspection, as it is introspection and a need to understand how our inner worlds work. This is likely common among NTPs in general. This also leads to a ton of self-criticism that occurs mostly hidden from the outside world. When we get upset over someone criticizing us, oftentimes the anger comes not from the criticism itself, but more from the sense of "haven't you figured out that I'm beating myself up over this way more than you ever could? FFS, I don't need to deal with extra crap".

Beating oneself up, this is most of us who introspect and own our parts. Why limit this to NTs? I certainly empathize.

Likewise, I'm assuming that your implication is that because we don't seem to have a grip on our emotions in certain circumstances, that the claim of "self-awareness" is somewhat suspect. I'll just say that in that circumstance, what's going on outside may not square away with what's inside. "Why am I feeling this way?" and reasoning it out is a very common conversation I have with myself, even if it's not externally apparent often.

Actually, this is expressing more judgment than I intended with what I considered a neutral statement. I wouldn't generalize about ENTPs not having a grip on their emotions (woa) as much as I wouldn't generalize about them having particular self-awareness. I object to both generalizations and won't adopt the former as my own.

Awareness can also imply that you understand the emotional response, where it's coming from, purpose and consequences. While changing them can be useful, using them to your own and to others' advantage (emotional manipulation) can be useful as well, even if distasteful.

Your point about responsibility speaks more to your own personal values than awareness in general, and perhaps implies "self-awareness" more than anything.

I was using your distinction between self awareness and awareness which you seem to have collapsed here. Manipulation can be useful, certainly, I was simply pointing out that it doesn't gel with the definition of self awareness. It has less to do with my personal values and more with the general understanding of what self-awareness or as you were pointing out, awareness (relating the effects of motivations to the outside world) means.
The reliance on my personal values for debate is tiring.

Like I mentioned before, our emotions are hacked out in our heads, and the process usually effectively determines the initial cause and subsequent effects (though the process can take a long time), letting us come to terms with what we feel and why we feel it. Once again, if you're not let in, it's not your place to intervene.

There is no interest in intervening, the point made before and now again is in questioning the conclusions reached. That of self awareness for the type being one. The conclusions are all that are visible here and do not reflect any special self awareness which is a pretty hefty claim to make. I questioned this label without any interest in intervening. If the process isn't transparent, the label isn't deserved.

By the way, a cheap trick if you want to give out emotional advice and analysis, and not necessarily receive the brunt of our wrath - "If I were in your place". "If I were in your place, I'd be feeling X. In those circumstances, I find that it's best to Y." Even if we don't immediately agree, just continuing with a response like "yeah, but it's worth a shot, isn't it?" can help a ton. With that in mind, if the response to that is something like "yeah, but that's not the way I feel about it at all", then just let it be.

I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting that I am giving out emotional advice and analysis? I'm a little horrified at the suggestion and don't see that at all since I don't even know you. I question the conclusions and generalizations you made which are not equated with emotional advice/analysis.

Also the cheap trick you suggested is one that I would shy away from because it is so blatantly obvious to the subject that the adviser is assuming better knowledge of the situation than the advisee. If I were in your place holds little weight because simply, you're not. Assuming understanding of the situation would be false and presumptuous. Instead, I would choose to ask the person, if they solicited advice what options they saw and just present any other options I could see with the caveat that they are simply from my perspective which is of someone who is NOT in their situation. No false understanding of their situation is presented there. Sincerely, I've found this works far better than the perspective you presented, in my opinion.

Let me just point out that you presume here what my response (as representing ENFPs or other Ne-Fi users) may be in the situation. That's simply inaccurate for me and perhaps for others as well. I don't think it's unusual at all to remove myself from a situation/people that don't have much to offer. It seems a natural response. It's the view of the other people I objected to - that is the only Fi part that needs to be satisfied.

Gotcha. Why remove yourself instead of just ignoring that person?

This is hilarious - thanks for the help with keeping Fi in check while engaging Te. It is very presumptive but also funny which gets some points.

Hah, I had an image of Fi and Te being a squabbling couple. Didn't come up until you wrote this.

There are two parts to this -- one, when you say you are putting up with people, there is an inherent hierarchy expressed to the observor. The hierarchy as viewed from the outside views other people inherently as less interesting and with less to offer. There is judgment there. I'm not sure where seeing them as 'bad' comes in - their moral character is not in question here, it is their intelligence and value as companions. In that sense, there is judgment, much like you pointed out there was judgment at my end with understanding this as arrogant.

Once again, it might just be a loss of meaning in translation. I "put up" with people of putatively superior status all the time. It doesn't mean I think I'm better than them, it just means that some of their actions wear on my (admittedly short) patience.

Okay. Sure.

Giving up so soon?

How big is this ballpark? When you spoke of being right, it wasn't only in the context of measurable consequences and predictions regarding these consequences which highlights a more subjective characterization of the circumstances than you present here. Even in this realm of measurable consequences and cause and effect, the odds (given the inherent unpredictability of life, particularly when involving human behavior, hence tentative conclusions in the social sciences) do not support the claim.

Are you sure you're not assuming a subjective characterization that isn't there? There is a difference between being "right" and being "in the right". "Right" is that high-percentage number. "In the right" is probably closer to 35%. Much like your social science example, these are trends, rather than hard empirical numbers.

I think this has been suitable addressed by the others as well. The social dominance part is completely understandable as is the frustration with questioning of personal decisions.

Yes, they've done really well expanding on things here.

This was a response to a weak argument on my part regarding non logical outcomes. So, I'll restate.

First, in the original statement, there was a presumption that you (or ENTPs generally) are the only ones concerned with logical outcomes and thus best equipped to see these. Other perspectives may include different understandings of the logical outcomes as well. It is possible that objective logical processing by different people can lead to different outcomes. You may still ignore other logical perspectives.

Secondly, to address what you do here in response to there not being only logical outcomes. There is a presumption in this about my or other F's processes. The presumption that Fs are only interested or useful in their impact on the human realm or as the last part suggests, for those of us who are Ne doms, stop at Ne's explanations (superficial or surface explanations then)? This seems strange and is a limited understanding of F's processes. Sure, F functions are naturally inclined to the human realm. Why presume however that Fs are not interested in understanding the inherent logic of the subject as well?

And yes, the feeling function does have its own logic (tell us how you really feel about this, will you, it didn't come across above with the illogic remark. ) There are other threads on here that discuss the differences and characterization of F logic better and a search could bring several up.

I see what you're saying here, and you do raise valid points -

1. I think it's a bit overstated to say that ENTPs are the only ones concerned with logic, and you may be confusing my use of "we" in this context with a universal assertion of ENTP supremacy in this area. I only specified on our type because this is an ENTP-specific thread. I don't think you'll find many of us that will discount another's argument if it's presented with evidence. We may seem that way (due to the devil's advocate inclination that we use to learn more about the argument), but it's rarely the case. This might just be one of those areas of fundamental miscommunication.

2. I see what you're saying about there being logic in all the F functions, and I agree, it is there, even if not initially apparent to me. That being said, the problem comes with how selfish it can appear when manifesting itself. When someone makes a scene in public because they've been deeply hurt, that appears very selfish to me (as you didn't need to drag the rest of us into it). That seems very illogical from an Fe tert-Ti aux perspective. There was also no intent of implying that it is only human activities that interest you, as Ne of course orients us toward interaction and understanding of the outside world. It may just be more that we're more comfortable with "facts" and you may be more comfortable with something akin to "truths".

Honestly, figuring out the F logic has made life a lot more comfortable and easier to handle!

This is fair but wasn't reflected in what you had originally said and in the assumption that ENTPs are generally right much of the time. Absolutely, as we all do, filter other perspectives through the same rigorous process you would your own. That is simply employing discernment which we all do. This helps clarify that you do consider other perspectives which wasn't reflected in previous statements. This was less relevant to ENTPs in general since its a gross generalization to make based on a single person's comment (on your original ballpark figure on being right).

Going back to there being a difference between being "right" and "in the right". We're really good about being "right". We're complete shit about being "in the right".

The highlighted part is where my interest lay. The social cohesion and harmony part is less important to me, particularly when the interest is better intellectual understanding of a subject. Weak Fe, clearly, on my part. Yes, we likely do use Te as a filter and it is useful. Not being bogged down with Fe means we are not inclined to accept other opinions purely because they are other opinions and thus there is no remorse in dismissing them when they are not discerning. Yet, the assumption at my end (don't know about other ENFPs) is that there are always multiple valid perspectives, logical or feeling based and I'd be better equipped and have a fuller understanding of the subject itself were I to consider them and put them through the test I do my own.

Maybe the Ti-Fi split here is Fi concerned for "is this holistically correct?" while the Ti concern is "does this work?".

Fe is the only thing that brings us down to Earth. It's not a bad thing, you know.

Personally, and to most high Fi users (I'm not a dom so I should be careful about using that), authenticity is more important than social conventions. You will have sympathy at least in this quarter for expressing yourself as such instead of using cliched social language. It's also quite apparent at our end when this is done in the interpersonal realm. B.S. meters, so to speak.

Thanks for letting me know. I think there might be an dom/aux split here, but even my INFP friend who'll clam up when I offend him will still come back in the end and let me know that he appreciates that I don't pull punches. Likewise, I appreciate that he's the only one I know that can devastatingly criticize me and make me still feel somehow better afterwards.

Absolutely not and I hope it doesn't come across as such. If it does, it reflects a miscommunication. This may also be a conclusion you reached all on your own! You also assume here that the only conflict I am highlighting is that with my own internal principles and that what I have said is does not aim to or highlight inconsistencies in what you said with the eventual goal of a better understanding of the context, whatever it may be. Judging moral superiority should be relegated to the religiously inclined - they have stricter hierarchies than most of us. I don't. The shared goal, I thought, was finding out the best way to unearth the truth of the situation, whatever the context. Doing this in an egalitarian manner is even better.

What external conflict is there?

No. I don't agree. It's not just about timing or context (public versus private). I won't go so far as to call it irrational but the expression of an emotional viewpoint is almost always seen as less valuable than one that is done in a more objective manner. In the interest of Fe or social harmony, as you rightly pointed out, these are not always dismissed but I would hardly consider them as validated.

Maybe that's just Western society. At the same time, how many ultra-successful T users end up alone and truly lonely, with many respecters and very few friends? That's power. Soft power is much stronger than hard power.

We are naturally inclined toward giving more consideration to our own lot. For all the unfortunate stereotypes you pointed out above for high T men and women, there are an equal number for high F men and women. I do have sincere sympathy for the sexism angle regarding high T women and high F men, that is particularly unfortunate and holds true. However, being of the majority, high F women, I don't think we have any special privileges particularly in the professional realm but also in the personal realm (besides simply being considered sensitive and high EQ is considered a positive trait). In the professional realm, F users are systematically dismissed because purely objective presentations of arguments are valued more, in my experience. In the personal realm, expressing emotional arguments often is the source of more fear than respect, particularly with T-ers.

While I can certainly understand you seeing it this way, I do agree that we both take somewhat of a chauvinistic view on it. However, I wonder if it's just the nature of the beast that objectivity wins out in the professional world? Not so much that the F argument is wrong, but maybe that T arguments are understood more clearly by a greater number of people in precisely the way the speaker intended it to be understood, so as to minimize confusion and misinterpretation? These things are absolutely important in organizational structure, and it's often why Ti-users can have trouble here, too. Since so much of our thinking follows internal patterns that often aren't easily translatable into common English, the consistency of interpretation that Te-users enjoy is unavailable to us.

As far as the "fear" thing, yeah, because it's an unwinnable situation. Even if we make the most elegant and consistent argument as to why we're correct, we'll still just be called every name in the book and have convinced no one of anything. Can't you see how frustrating that can be?

Gladly and likewise. Comments are rarely neutral however and I'm just pointing out similar inconsistencies that may not be apparent.

Fair enough.

Beating oneself up, this is most of us who introspect and own our parts. Why limit this to NTs? I certainly empathize.

By no means was I implying that we're the only ones who do this. I was more asserting that because of the way we deconstruct our internal processes, that the introspection and self-criticism can take on a much different form than in other types, as we know exactly what we're good at and what we're not good at, and consequently, a failure in an area we're not good at is frustrating in that it seems so easy for everyone else, and a failure in an area we're good at is even worse, as we start to question whether we've been wrong about being good at that for this entire time.

Actually, this is expressing more judgment than I intended with what I considered a neutral statement. I wouldn't generalize about ENTPs not having a grip on their emotions (woa) as much as I wouldn't generalize about them having particular self-awareness. I object to both generalizations and won't adopt the former as my own.

Fair enough.

I was using your distinction between self awareness and awareness which you seem to have collapsed here. Manipulation can be useful, certainly, I was simply pointing out that it doesn't gel with the definition of self awareness. It has less to do with my personal values and more with the general understanding of what self-awareness or as you were pointing out, awareness (relating the effects of motivations to the outside world) means.
The reliance on my personal values for debate is tiring.

Right, I had intended an implied shift to external awareness. Sorry if it didn't come across that way clearly. You're right about having to debate personal values; there's no point, as debate is not what they're for.

There is no interest in intervening, the point made before and now again is in questioning the conclusions reached. That of self awareness for the type being one. The conclusions are all that are visible here and do not reflect any special self awareness which is a pretty hefty claim to make. I questioned this label without any interest in intervening. If the process isn't transparent, the label isn't deserved.

In the end, I just think that we have different definitions of what self-awareness is, and that we're not going to reconcile that. Them's the breaks.

I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting that I am giving out emotional advice and analysis? I'm a little horrified at the suggestion and don't see that at all since I don't even know you. I question the conclusions and generalizations you made which are not equated with emotional advice/analysis.

Also the cheap trick you suggested is one that I would shy away from because it is so blatantly obvious to the subject that the adviser is assuming better knowledge of the situation than the advisee. If I were in your place holds little weight because simply, you're not. Assuming understanding of the situation would be false and presumptuous. Instead, I would choose to ask the person, if they solicited advice what options they saw and just present any other options I could see with the caveat that they are simply from my perspective which is of someone who is NOT in their situation. No false understanding of their situation is presented there. Sincerely, I've found this works far better than the perspective you presented, in my opinion.

No, you haven't done that, but it's a trend in other ENFPs that I know. The latter strategy is a good one, but would get me pissed off really damn quickly ("you think I haven't thought of that?!?"). The more Fe-heavy strategy, while seemingly fake, allows for externalization of the concept and more readily allows Ti usage while beating Si down for a while.